Agenda Profile: Helmen Kütt

The political stance centers on sharp criticism regarding the underfunding of specialized care services, which has resulted in a shortage of service spots and lengthy waiting lists. The speaker slams the government's priorities, pointing specifically to the distribution of a tax giveaway exceeding 100 million euros to high-income earners, at the same time the social sector remains unfunded and the state is taking out loans. The position is strongly social and people-centric, highlighting the burnout experienced by informal caregivers and the state's failure to implement court rulings. The criticism is primarily aimed at the government's misplaced priorities.

The speaker demonstrates deep expertise in the field of special welfare services, utilizing data from the National Audit Office's overview regarding the length and growth of waiting lists between 2018 and 2024 (e.g., the doubling of queues and waiting times ranging from 14 to 53 months). He/She is proficient in the technical details concerning budget applications and allocations (e.g., 195 million vs 4.2 million euros) and is aware of the plans to transfer services to local municipalities in 2028. Furthermore, the speaker references the opinion of Marelle Erlenheim, the former Secretary General of the Ministry of Social Affairs, regarding salary increases and the transfer of services.

The rhetorical style is serious and pressing, balancing logical criticism—based on data from the National Audit Office—with emotional appeals, emphasizing people's concerns and the burnout experienced by informal caregivers. Strong contrasts are employed (the "tax gift" versus the welfare crisis), and reference is made to a public demonstration to underscore the gravity of the situation. The speaker is also procedurally precise, demanding comprehensive and substantive answers from the minister.

The speaker's action model involves submitting interpellations (alongside five colleagues from the Social Democratic faction) and actively participating in parliamentary debate to secure substantive responses. Reference is also made to a previous question posed to the Minister of Justice, and this activity is linked to the public demonstration held on September 25th.

The primary criticism is aimed at the government's budget priorities, specifically the underfunding of the social sector while simultaneously distributing a tax break targeted at high earners (those making 4,000+ euros). The criticism is intense and policy-driven, accusing the government of creating a budget that fails to provide security because specialized care has been neglected. Particularly sharp criticism is directed at the €100 million tax break, which the state is borrowing money to finance.

The speaker is cooperating with their party colleagues, being one of the six social democrats who submitted the inquiry. They expressed their wish to support and assist the Minister of Social Affairs so that the minister can champion these issues within the government. Furthermore, they stressed the necessity of ensuring the minister is given adequate time for a comprehensive reply.

The focus is primarily national, addressing the accessibility and funding of state-organized special welfare services throughout Estonia. Regional disparities concerning home care services are briefly mentioned, and reference is made to the historical situation within institutions located in Viljandi County.

The economic views expressed are strongly social, specifically opposing tax relief for high earners—relief that is financed by loans and seen as a fundamental lack of priorities. They demand significant state investment in the social sphere to resolve the current crisis and guarantee the availability of essential services. Furthermore, there is criticism that allocating 4.2 million euros for salary increases translates to a mere 20-euro raise for support staff (activity supervisors), which clearly fails to address the underlying issue.

The main social issue is the crisis in special welfare services, particularly the shortage of service places for 24/7 care and for dangerous individuals directed to closed institutions by court order. Emphasis is placed on the need to support informal caregivers, as they are left alone to deal with the burden and are forced to leave their jobs, and on ensuring the availability of services as a matter of public safety.

The legislative focus centers on holding the government accountable via an interpellation concerning the underfunding of special welfare services. Support is being offered for budget amendments aimed at securing service financing, and emphasis is placed on the necessity of resolving the transfer of these services to local municipalities (KOV) in a manner that prevents them from being chronically underfunded. Furthermore, the necessity of support measures for assisted living facilities (service houses) is also highlighted.